Tight patterns?

[Bob Martin]

Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?

The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
behind him.

IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
second just to check traffic).

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
>
> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>

I own an Aeronca 7AC and fly a tight pattern, and think I'm quite normal.

[dave]

I was wondering the same thing. I own a Citabria and fly a tight
pattern. When I trained in PA28-161's we flew tight patterns. I was
taught to fly a pattern that will allow me to land if I lose the engine
while in the pattern. The students at my home field train in new 172's.
They fly, to my eye, very wide patterns. Maybe it's a newer training
method?
Dave

> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>
> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.
>
> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
> second just to check traffic).

[Chris Ehlbeck]

Bob,

I can sympathize. I fly (still student) at McCollum (RYY) and do notice the
same thing. My CFI called them "747 patterns". The tower likes to keep
closed traffic between the field and Kennesaw Mountain no matter which
runway is in use so you can't stray too far that way! But yes, I've
wondered "Is he going to Roswell (or Birmingham) before he turns base?"
Then again, they may be a student learning is how I look at it. But, my CFI
used to say things like, "Now would be a good time to turn." But they're
not all students. I've been in the pattern with CAPflight doing touch and
goes and they'll fly those 747 patterns too!

Chris

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>
> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.
>
> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
> second just to check traffic).

[Wdtabor]

In article >,
(Bob Martin) writes:

>
>IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
>Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
>basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
>second just to check traffic).
>

Like everything else, this can be taken to dangerous extremes in either
direction.

Too wide a pattern wastes time and puts you out of gliding range from the
runway.

But the only close call I ever had to a collision was the result of a guy in a
NORDO Husky flying too tight, and especially, TOO LOW, a pattern.

At CPK, pattern altitude is 1000 msl. I was practicing crosswind landings in a
Katana ( really like those little airplanes) and staying close in at pattern
altitude. The Husky took off after me and I saw him lifting off about midfield
as I turned from crosswind to downwind, but then lost track of him. On final, I
still couldn't see him and hadn't heard him either, so I got nervous. So I
added power and did some S-turns to move my wing around an look down, and sure
enough, there he was, a hundred feet or so below and slightly ahead of me. I
went around and later had a talk with him at the fuel pumps.

I don't think he ever got to 800 feet, and probably turned crosswing before he
was even to the end of the runway, and flew such a tight pattern that he
overtook and passed me. Add a low wing over a high wing, a NORDO aircraft
flying a non-standard pattern, and you've got a midair waiting to happen.

The point being that we fly a standard pattern for a reason, and that is so
other pilots can anticipate where we're going to be and know where to look to
see and avoid and so that the timing works out right. It would make some sense
for the slower Husky to fly a tighter pattern than a Cessna, and a Bonanza a
wider one, just to accomadate the speed differences in maintaining separation,
but not reaching pattern altitude is asking for disaster.

And, of course, if you're NORDO, it is even more important to fly in a
predictable manner.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Dave S]

His not being where you expect him to be... has nothing to do with your
(and his) mutual obligation to see and avoid each other. There is no
requirement to even USE a pattern. You cant depend on other traffic
having a radio at the uncontrolled fields I use.

Dave

Wdtabor wrote:
> In article >,
> (Bob Martin) writes:
>
>
>>IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
>>Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
>>basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
>>second just to check traffic).
>>
>
>
> Like everything else, this can be taken to dangerous extremes in either
> direction.
>
> Too wide a pattern wastes time and puts you out of gliding range from the
> runway.
>
> But the only close call I ever had to a collision was the result of a guy in a
> NORDO Husky flying too tight, and especially, TOO LOW, a pattern.
>
> At CPK, pattern altitude is 1000 msl. I was practicing crosswind landings in a
> Katana ( really like those little airplanes) and staying close in at pattern
> altitude. The Husky took off after me and I saw him lifting off about midfield
> as I turned from crosswind to downwind, but then lost track of him. On final, I
> still couldn't see him and hadn't heard him either, so I got nervous. So I
> added power and did some S-turns to move my wing around an look down, and sure
> enough, there he was, a hundred feet or so below and slightly ahead of me. I
> went around and later had a talk with him at the fuel pumps.
>
> I don't think he ever got to 800 feet, and probably turned crosswing before he
> was even to the end of the runway, and flew such a tight pattern that he
> overtook and passed me. Add a low wing over a high wing, a NORDO aircraft
> flying a non-standard pattern, and you've got a midair waiting to happen.
>
> The point being that we fly a standard pattern for a reason, and that is so
> other pilots can anticipate where we're going to be and know where to look to
> see and avoid and so that the timing works out right. It would make some sense
> for the slower Husky to fly a tighter pattern than a Cessna, and a Bonanza a
> wider one, just to accomadate the speed differences in maintaining separation,
> but not reaching pattern altitude is asking for disaster.
>
> And, of course, if you're NORDO, it is even more important to fly in a
> predictable manner.
>
> Don
>

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article >,
(Bob Martin) wrote:

> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>
> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.
>
> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
> second just to check traffic).

AMEN! Here around Daytona Beach, we call them "Riddle Patterns." I fly
a high-performance antique and do a lot of overheads (usually as part of
a formation). I try to keep it in tight enough to make the runway even
dirty, power off. The result is keeping to less than 1/2 mile from the
runway.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"dave" > wrote in message
...
>
> I was wondering the same thing. I own a Citabria and fly a tight
> pattern. When I trained in PA28-161's we flew tight patterns. I was
> taught to fly a pattern that will allow me to land if I lose the engine
> while in the pattern. The students at my home field train in new 172's.
> They fly, to my eye, very wide patterns. Maybe it's a newer training
> method?
>

I took my primary training nearly thirty years ago at GRB in a Cessna 150.
Lambeau Field is about 2 1/2 miles from the runway 24 threshold, I don't
recall ever getting near it while in the pattern unless directed to follow
another aircraft. Today it's common for students in similar aircraft to
make their base to final turn over the stadium even when they're alone in
the pattern.

[Kyle Boatright]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>
> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.
>
> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
> second just to check traffic).

Huge patterns must be part of the training syllabus locally. I fly out of
Cartersville, which is about 50 NM north of Falcon. Being about 15 miles
north of McCollum (a busy controlled field), we get all of McCollum's
overflow traffic from the various flight schools and other flyers who are
based at McCollum, but don't want to deal with the traffic there when
shooting touch and go's...

I can't count the number of times I've followed a 172 from Northside
Aviation that is flying a B-52 sized pattern with only him and me in the
pattern... AARGH!

Even better, the instructors from Northside like to use our local Unicom
frequency for air to air chat's... There is nothing more exciting than
trying to figure out where 8 aircraft (2 172's, 3 ultralights, a couple of
RV's, and a Lear Jet ) are in the patten when you're barraged with some 22
year old CFI's social plans for Saturday night.

KB

[C J Campbell]

"Bob Martin" > wrote in message
om...
| Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
|
| The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
| training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
| landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
| some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
| downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc.

All of us at PAVCO constantly rail against students that fly bomber
patterns. None of MY students would ever do such a thing. It must be all
those other instructors' students. :-)

Our pattern at TIW is wider than I would like because of a local noise
abatement procedure -- the tower wants to keep downwind traffic out over
Wollochet Bay, which means you are more than a mile from the field. If it is
a north pattern, they don't want you to turn to crosswind until you are at
1000 feet or over the golf course, which is almost two miles out. Even so,
this pattern does not seem to be nearly big enough for a lot of people.

[Richard Russell]

Dave,
This is an interesting topic. I don't fly out of your home airport
but I have landed there many times. I live close so I spend a lot of
my liesure time watching the traffic there. You are correct that they
typically fly a fairly large pattern but it is not only the students.
I can sit there and predict where the base to final turn will be and
it is very consistent through the entire cross-section of pilots.

I don't know if it's a new method training but I do think it is an
unintended byproduct of the training. Students tend to think of each
leg of the pattern as an event in and of itself. As such, they have
the understandable need to stabilize each leg and go through the
mental work of setting up the next leg. Many pilots retain this
method of landing because it is what they learned and they are
comfortable with it. And there is nothing wrong with that. That
being said, there is a lot to be said for a tighter pattern. It
sounds like something that the CFIs might want to present at their
BFRs. You know, something like "Your landing pattern is fine, but now
that you have xxx hours you may want to consider tightening the
pattern up a little", followed by a demonstration.

By the way, I have observed (strictly anecdotally) that taildraggers
tend to fly a tighter pattern than us trike guys. :)
Rich Russell

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 10:26:33 -0500, dave >
wrote:

>I was wondering the same thing. I own a Citabria and fly a tight
>pattern. When I trained in PA28-161's we flew tight patterns. I was
>taught to fly a pattern that will allow me to land if I lose the engine
>while in the pattern. The students at my home field train in new 172's.
> They fly, to my eye, very wide patterns. Maybe it's a newer training
>method?
>Dave
>
>> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>>
>> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
>> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
>> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
>> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
>> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
>> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
>> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
>> behind him.
>>
>> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
>> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
>> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
>> second just to check traffic).

[Dan Luke]

"Wdtabor" wrote:
> The point being that we fly a standard pattern for a reason,

What's a "standard pattern?"
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[EDR]

> I don't think he ever got to 800 feet, and probably turned crosswing before he
> was even to the end of the runway, and flew such a tight pattern that he
> overtook and passed me. Add a low wing over a high wing, a NORDO aircraft
> flying a non-standard pattern, and you've got a midair waiting to happen.

Don, you have to understand that what may be a "normal" or "standard"
pattern for metal spam cans is too high for a light, rag and tube
taildragger. The lighter weight and lower descent speeds would reek
havoc with your spam can descents and airspeeds in your "normal"
pattern.

In my 7AC, I can fly inside you and below and either land and be clear
before you turn final or, I can do a 360 between downwind and final and
land behind you if you are on final. There is no comparison between the
performance of aircraft.

My approach speed is 55 MILES per hour. How far behind me are you going
to have to fly and how big a pattern are you going to fly to stay
behind me?

At my landing speed, 45 MILES per hour, I may only roll 100-200 feet.
If I land at the approach threshold, that means I have to taxi on the
runway to get to the taxiway, which may be 1000 or 1500 feet down the
runway. My taxi speed is 25 - 30 MILES per hour.

If I fly your "normal" pattern, you are in a world of hurt. Plus, if
your engine burps, you are going to make an off airport landing. By
flying inside and below you, the taildragger pilot allows you to be
where you want to be.

Additionally, because I can land slower and shorter, I may turn my
downwind to final before I reach the approach end of the runway to
alleviate the long taxi. I will pick my landing spot down the runway at
a point where I can touch down, roll out and make the turn off.

[Wdtabor]

In article t>, Dave S
> writes:

>
>His not being where you expect him to be... has nothing to do with your
>(and his) mutual obligation to see and avoid each other. There is no
>requirement to even USE a pattern. You cant depend on other traffic
>having a radio at the uncontrolled fields I use.
>

However is inside pattern and failure to reach the published pattern altitude
created a positioning that made it impossible for either of us to see or avoid
the other.

Had I not been nervous about NOT being able to see him and not knowing, since
he was NORDO, if he had remained in the pattern or flown straight out, he would
have had landing gear poking down through his wings in just a few more seconds.

It may be true that folks aren't required to fly a standard pattern, at the
published altitude, but I am saying it is good practice to do so, and
unnecssarily risky to not.

And that flying predictably when NORDO is even more important.

Not law, just good sense.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Wdtabor]

In article >, EDR >
writes:

>
>Don, you have to understand that what may be a "normal" or "standard"
>pattern for metal spam cans is too high for a light, rag and tube
>taildragger. The lighter weight and lower descent speeds would reek
>havoc with your spam can descents and airspeeds in your "normal"
>pattern.
>
>In my 7AC, I can fly inside you and below and either land and be clear
>before you turn final or, I can do a 360 between downwind and final and
>land behind you if you are on final. There is no comparison between the
>performance of aircraft.
>

You can, if you see me. But I am going to be high and behind you from the
moment you turn crosswind. Do you have one of those clear wings?

In the scenario I described, the Husky came from under and behind me as he
passed and cut me off in the pattern, he was obscurred by the wing and fuselage
of the Katana from the moment I lost sight of him on downwind.

If you fly that kind of pattern, I have no way to know you are even there until
I hear the thump.

Don

--
Wm. Donald (Don) Tabor Jr., DDS
PP-ASEL
Chesapeake, VA - CPK, PVG

[Rick Durden]

Bob,

> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.

You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
true pain in the whatsis.

At controlled fields when I'm stuck behind some yahoo flying downwind
a mile from the field, I'll ask for a right pattern the next time
around, fly it tight and get in front of the slow motion stuff. Tower
usually understands and will cooperate. Sometimes a visit to the
tower to discuss it results in an understanding and they'll help you
out.

At uncontrolled fields, if it is just one airplane that is the problem
when I'm shooting landings, I'll simply fly a close in downwind and
ask the pilot of the offending airplane if he minds me flying a tight
pattern inside him one time. I've never had anyone refuse. A polite
inquiry has always worked for me.

All the best,
Rick

[Steve Robertson]

Well, you shouldn't fly a tight pattern any more than you should fly a
wide pattern. Maintaining correct pattern altitude is a good ideal, too.
This stuff is all spelled out in the AIM.

Best regards,

Steve Robertson
N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 Musketeer

Bob Martin wrote:

> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>
> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.
>
> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
> second just to check traffic).

[Wallace Berry]

In article >,
Richard Russell > wrote:

> Dave,
> This is an interesting topic. I don't fly out of your home airport
> but I have landed there many times. I live close so I spend a lot of
> my liesure time watching the traffic there. You are correct that they
> typically fly a fairly large pattern but it is not only the students.
> I can sit there and predict where the base to final turn will be and
> it is very consistent through the entire cross-section of pilots.
>
> I don't know if it's a new method training but I do think it is an
> unintended byproduct of the training. Students tend to think of each
> leg of the pattern as an event in and of itself. As such, they have
> the understandable need to stabilize each leg and go through the
> mental work of setting up the next leg. Many pilots retain this
> method of landing because it is what they learned and they are
> comfortable with it. And there is nothing wrong with that. That
> being said, there is a lot to be said for a tighter pattern. It
> sounds like something that the CFIs might want to present at their
> BFRs. You know, something like "Your landing pattern is fine, but now
> that you have xxx hours you may want to consider tightening the
> pattern up a little", followed by a demonstration.
>
> By the way, I have observed (strictly anecdotally) that taildraggers
> tend to fly a tighter pattern than us trike guys. :)
> Rich Russell
>

The instructor who soloed me in the C150 wanted me a mile out on final
at 300 feet agl. Directly over an unlandable area of tall pines. I did
as she asked when she was in the plane. When she got out of the plane to
solo me, I flew the pattern the way I wanted to. I would keep the
runway, or other landable area under my wing, usually pretty close to
the end of the wing strut. Never out of gliding range of a safe landing
site.With the 40 degree flaps and power off, the descent from a high,
short final was pretty much like parachuting. Maybe I was being
paranoid about an engine failure but the C150 I was flying had a very
noticeable repair on the wing where it had once hit a car while landing
on the road following an engine failure. The CFI's I've flown with since
are older tailwheel types who teach high tight patterns.

I had the good fortune to get checked out in a J3 Cub recently. After
flying it for two days, with and without the instructor, I realized that
I could not remember looking at the altimeter once. Everything was about
reference to the ground and horizon and using landmarks on the aircaft,
such as the jury struts, etc. judge correct heights and distances. This
is as it should be for VFR in light (slow) single engine airplanes.

If the engine is not on fire, I'm pretty happy. If it's actually making
power, I count that as a bonus.

[Bob Martin]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message >...
> Bob,
>
> > The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> > training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> > landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> > some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> > downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> > behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> > turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> > behind him.
>
> You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
> training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
> pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
> true pain in the whatsis.

Exactly what the training is at Falcon... granted, I went through the
same course, but not with the intent of a commercial rating (at the
time, anyways). However, my instructor was the son of a South African
bush pilot... so I got a more "fly the airplane" approach than the
school's "follow the school-standard procedures." Thus, my next CFI
was shocked the first couple times he flew with me... but I made him
get over it ;) And since I've started flying an RV-6 (as opposed to a
C-150) with my dad (former E-2 pilot), my pattern has gotten even
tighter...

> At uncontrolled fields, if it is just one airplane that is the problem
> when I'm shooting landings, I'll simply fly a close in downwind and
> ask the pilot of the offending airplane if he minds me flying a tight
> pattern inside him one time. I've never had anyone refuse. A polite
> inquiry has always worked for me.

Yeah, I've asked if I can cut ahead of people before... it's real easy
to do, since passing the end of the runway I'm usually at 300ft AGL,
and climbing at least 1000fpm. When flying my normal pattern, I turn
crosswind then or shortly after... and flying a continuous turn to
downwind, I'll end up at 1000ft about the time I roll out.

[Robert M. Gary]

(Bob Martin) wrote in message >...
> Anyone else here like to fly a tight (or tighter than normal) pattern?
>
> The field we're based at (Falcon Field, FFC) has a pretty good-sized
> training operation, and there are a lot of students out practicing
> landings, especially on good days. What annoys me, though, is that
> some of these students fly huge patterns--like 2-mile finals,
> downwinds 1-2 miles out from the runway, etc. Sometimes, I'll end up
> behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that, by the time he
> turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
> behind him.
>
> IMHO, there's no reason to go flying a jet/heavy twin pattern in a
> Cessna. I've always tried to fly mine 4 white on the PAPI, with
> basically a continuous turn from downwind to final (leveling out for a
> second just to check traffic).


At a lot of airports you are in the pattern mixed up with Jets so it
works out best if you fly a similar pattern. A Cessna's pretty damn
slow though.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> At a lot of airports you are in the pattern mixed up with Jets so it
> works out best if you fly a similar pattern. A Cessna's pretty damn
> slow though.
>

Right. So if the Cessna does fly a pattern similar to the jet's there's no
way they can mix. To keep the same spacing an aircraft half the speed of
another aircraft must fly a pattern half the total length of that
aircraft's.

[Dennis O'Connor]

Prescribed pattern distances/altitudes/entrys are fine until someone
doesn't..
- good strobes, good radio technique, look out for the other guy, and keep
looking until clear of the runway -
are the only things that can be depended upon to work... If you want more
safety add another strobe to your plane not another regulation...
denny

"Steve Robertson" > wrote in message
...
> Well, you shouldn't fly a tight pattern any more than you should fly a
> wide pattern.

[Ron Hammer]

(Rick Durden) wrote in message

> At controlled fields when I'm stuck behind some yahoo flying downwind
> a mile from the field, I'll ask for a right pattern the next time
> around, fly it tight and get in front of the slow motion stuff. Tower
> usually understands and will cooperate. Sometimes a visit to the
> tower to discuss it results in an understanding and they'll help you
> out.

I have had the tower asked me if I wanted to do right trafic to get
ahead of the other person.
This is also the same tower I have heard tell incoming trafic 1 Cessna
flying Huge pattern.
Most the instructor I have flown with there teach a tight pattern. I
assume this is the norm at this airport because of what I have heard
tower say.
Ron

[Michael]

(Rick Durden) wrote
> You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
> training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
> pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
> true pain in the whatsis.

If they were real ab-initio career training programs where the
graduate of the program goes straight into the right seat of an
airliner, it would not be such a bad thing. They could do as they
wanted at their (usually towered) training bases, and we would not
have to deal with them very much elsewhere.

The problem is that these are not real ab-initio career programs. The
graduates of these programs mostly leave the school at 250-300 hours
with CFI/CFII/MEI ratings, and spend the next several hundred hours
teaching elsewhere. That's where they do the real damage.

These guys move on after a year or three and are mostly not seen in GA
again, but their students are mostly not career track, and we have to
deal with them in GA for as long as they're going to fly.

We (and by that I mean the CFI's here and in the pilot lounges, who
are mostly not headed for the airlines) all sit around and talk about
how none of our students would ever fly airliner-sized patterns, since
we taught them better than that, so it must be some other guy's
students. Well, guess what - for every one of us, there are half a
dozen of them - and by them I mean the ab-initio career program
graduates. What's more, for every student we train, they train half a
dozen - because we're mostly part time and they're mostly full time.

How bad is it? Once I inadvertently cut off a guy in the pattern. He
was so far outside me on downwind (and a couple hundred feet high to
boot) that it just never occurred to me that he was in the pattern.
The sad thing is, he was in a Cherokee and I was in a Twin Comanche.

Michael

[Tune2828]

<<Sometimes, I'll end up behind somebody in the pattern, only to realize that,
by the time he turns final, I could have done another touch and go and ended up
behind him.>>

off topic but i always silently calculate this when i ski with friends (who are
slower), i.e. i could have been down and rode the lift up and been back down
by the time we finish first run!

[Newps]

Ron Hammer wrote:

> (Rick Durden) wrote in message
>
>
>>At controlled fields when I'm stuck behind some yahoo flying downwind
>>a mile from the field, I'll ask for a right pattern the next time
>>around, fly it tight and get in front of the slow motion stuff. Tower
>>usually understands and will cooperate. Sometimes a visit to the
>>tower to discuss it results in an understanding and they'll help you
>>out.
>
>
> I have had the tower asked me if I wanted to do right trafic to get
> ahead of the other person.

No need to fly the other direction. Just have the tower start your base
early. Same goes for an uncontrolled pattern. I wouldn't hesitate to
cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.

[Jeb]

"Dennis O'Connor" > wrote in message >...
> Prescribed pattern distances/altitudes/entrys are fine until someone
> doesn't..
> - good strobes, good radio technique, look out for the other guy, and keep
> looking until clear of the runway -
> are the only things that can be depended upon to work... If you want more
> safety add another strobe to your plane not another regulation...
> denny
>

if you want more safety keep asshole pilots on the ground

[lardsoup]

You're kidding, right? How is cutting someone off in the pattern, because
you don't like the way they're flying, safe?

>"Newps" wrote. I wouldn't hesitate to
> cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.

[Newps]

He's flying to a 2 mile final, I learned that the first time I had to
follow him, won't happen again. I'm on downwind behind him. Abeam the
numbers or there abouts I turn base. When he eventually gets on final
I'm already turning crosswind.

lardsoup wrote:

> You're kidding, right? How is cutting someone off in the pattern, because
> you don't like the way they're flying, safe?
>
>
>>"Newps" wrote. I wouldn't hesitate to
>>cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.
>
>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message >...
> "Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
> om...
> >
> > At a lot of airports you are in the pattern mixed up with Jets so it
> > works out best if you fly a similar pattern. A Cessna's pretty damn
> > slow though.
> >
>
> Right. So if the Cessna does fly a pattern similar to the jet's there's no
> way they can mix. To keep the same spacing an aircraft half the speed of
> another aircraft must fly a pattern half the total length of that
> aircraft's.

I don't drive a Cessna, I drive a Mooney.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Jeb" > wrote in message
om...
>
> if you want more safety keep asshole pilots on the ground
>

Asshole pilots don't know they're assholes.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I don't drive a Cessna, I drive a Mooney.
>

Right. So if the Mooney does fly a pattern similar to the jet's there's no
way they can mix. To keep the same spacing an aircraft half the speed of
another aircraft must fly a pattern half the total length of that
aircraft's.

[Cub Driver]

>I'm slowly getting used to flying a tight pattern. My instructor says
>that the only time he doesn't slip all the way to the field is at an
>airport with which he isn't intimately familiar.

I like the line in "Flight of Passage" where Old Man Buck comes in for
a landing in the J-3:

"High and hot and slipping like crazy."

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

>Abeam the
>numbers or there abouts I turn base.

Abeam the numbers?

What is your altitude, and what is your altitude when you turn final,
and how far down the field do you land?

Would you do the same at my home field, which is 2800 feet long?


all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[Cub Driver]

> i could have been down and rode the lift up and been back down
>by the time we finish first run!

I don't think so. My rule of thumb is that a five-minute ski run
equals a ten-minute lift ride. Ten of those and it's time for the
cafeteria.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email:

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

[lardsoup]

What type of air speeds are you talking about? You doing 60kts, they're
doing 100kts? You land and blow a tire, they have to go around? You still
haven't explained how it is safe to cut someone off in the pattern, just
because you don't like the way they are flying?

"Newps" > wrote in message
news:ZwGNb.63554$5V2.70987@attbi_s53...
> He's flying to a 2 mile final, I learned that the first time I had to
> follow him, won't happen again. I'm on downwind behind him. Abeam the
> numbers or there abouts I turn base. When he eventually gets on final
> I'm already turning crosswind.
>
> lardsoup wrote:
>
> > You're kidding, right? How is cutting someone off in the pattern,
because
> > you don't like the way they're flying, safe?
> >
> >
> >>"Newps" wrote. I wouldn't hesitate to
> >>cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
>
> > i could have been down and rode the lift up and been back down
> >by the time we finish first run!
>
> I don't think so. My rule of thumb is that a five-minute ski run
> equals a ten-minute lift ride. Ten of those and it's time for the
> cafeteria.

....or the bar/lounge.

[Newps]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
>>Abeam the
>>numbers or there abouts I turn base.
>
>
> Abeam the numbers?

Yep, why not? One sweeping constant bank turn to final from downwind.
At paved runways this is what I practice. It's essentially an engine
out manuver.

>
> What is your altitude, and what is your altitude when you turn final,
> and how far down the field do you land?

I don't know, it's all done by sight. You know it when it look right.
I get to midfield downwind at 1000 agl. I always try to be at 1000 agl
at midfield. Speed is 80 mph, flaps 20, power 15 inches. As you turn
base flaps go to 30, turning final they go to 40. No pitch changes that
way. Bank is between 20-30 degrees. You roll wings level as you come
over the numbers or maybe within the first coupla hundred feet at about
50 feet agl, the speed should still be about 75 mph. You know you
nailed it when the bank angle stays constant and you roll out over the
runway.


>
> Would you do the same at my home field, which is 2800 feet long?

My home runway is 3800 feet long with a turnoff where another runway
crosses at 2800 feet. I need to add power to get to the turnoff in a
calm wind. If I am landing on a dirt strip I usually practice landing
as short as possible. This means going out to a mile final and slowing
to 55 mph. I aim for the first 50 feet of the runway. With just me and
40 gallons I can get stopped in 450 feet of total runway used in no wind
at a 5000 foot DA. I don't need no stinkin' Cub.

[Newps]

lardsoup wrote:

> What type of air speeds are you talking about? You doing 60kts, they're
> doing 100kts? You land and blow a tire, they have to go around? You still
> haven't explained how it is safe to cut someone off in the pattern, just
> because you don't like the way they are flying?

It's not cutting anybody off, poor choice of words. I will not follow
you simply because the first time I came into the pattern I got behind
you. Now if there are others in the pattern I may have to follow you,
but if it's just the two of us or the others are no factor I ain't going
out to a two mile final simply because you do. Airspeed? In a normal
situation I slow to 80 mph IAS by the time I get to midfield downwind.
If anybody lands and blows a tire the rest of the people go around.
What's the point?


>
> "Newps" > wrote in message
> news:ZwGNb.63554$5V2.70987@attbi_s53...
>
>>He's flying to a 2 mile final, I learned that the first time I had to
>>follow him, won't happen again. I'm on downwind behind him. Abeam the
>>numbers or there abouts I turn base. When he eventually gets on final
>>I'm already turning crosswind.
>>
>>lardsoup wrote:
>>
>>
>>>You're kidding, right? How is cutting someone off in the pattern,
>
> because
>
>>>you don't like the way they're flying, safe?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Newps" wrote. I wouldn't hesitate to
>>>>cut somebody off if they flew a huge pattern.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>

[C J Campbell]

"Rick Durden" > wrote in message
m...
|
| You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
| training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
| pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
| true pain in the whatsis.
|

Baloney. The objective of the flight training has nothing to do with it. If
my students want to become commuter airline pilots (and many do), I still
teach them to fly tight patterns. I get nauseous whenever I hear people
talking about instructors and students heading to the airlines instead of
becoming 'real pilots,' whatever that is. As if the airlines want pilots
that don't know "how to fly," as you put it.

I think the problem lies more in two areas: noise abatement, as at our home
field of Tacoma Narrows, and pilot insecurity, where students and/or rusty
pilots are behind the airplane, so they stretch out the pattern to give
themselves more time.

[lardsoup]

I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea you have. Why bother with other
airplanes that bug me. Just do my own thing. There's no law against it,
right? Just wondering how you self announce in the pattern so I get it
right. Is it something like, "ABC traffic, N12123 downwind 32, number 2
behind, ah hell, I'm number one, base 32, ABC"
>"Newps" wrote What's the point?

[Newps]

lardsoup wrote:
> I'm thinking maybe it's a good idea you have. Why bother with other
> airplanes that bug me. Just do my own thing. There's no law against it,
> right? Just wondering how you self announce in the pattern so I get it
> right. Is it something like, "ABC traffic, N12123 downwind 32, number 2
> behind, ah hell, I'm number one, base 32, ABC"

No, I'll ask him. Something to the effect of..."N123 you gonna turn
base at the same place as last time?" He will say yes and then I will
say that I am starting my base now. Never a problem. If he were to say
something like "Nope, this will be a short approach." Then I'll follow.
Just because I have the misfortune to follow you for the first time
around the pattern doesn't mean it has to stay that way for the
remaining landings. They may have a good reason to go out that far.
Most of the time, from my perspective, they don't. Whatever. They have
to do what they are comfortable with. That doesn't mean I have to do it
too.


>
>>"Newps" wrote What's the point?
>
>
>

[lardsoup]

80 kts huh? I like to fly fast. Even in the pattern. Learned that during
the instrument training at BIG airports. You won't mind if I blow past you
at 100kts on the downwind. I mean why should I be stuck behind a slow poke.
Sure, I'll tell you I'm coming. Or maybe not. No reg against not using the
radio. Right?

[Dave Buckles]

Rick Durden wrote:

> You've discovered one of the real shortcomings of ab initio flight
> training where they teach students how to become commuter airline
> pilots rather than how to fly. Thus the giant sized patterns. It's a
> true pain in the whatsis.

Very, very close. These ab initio schools (we have two on field at
KOUN--the University of Oklahoma and (Sc)Airman Flight School) have two
problems. One, they're teaching people to be airline pilots. Two, they
assume the students are too dumb to figure out that a 747 ain't a 172,
and gets flown differently, so they teach students how they will fly
later. I've had instructors at OU--the chief ground instructor among
them--tell me that in almost as many words.

Patterns--you betcha. As I've commented many times, I've seen MD-80's
fly tighter patterns than these Cherokee- and 172-driving students. And
I'm not exaggerating--I was in the MD-80, looking at the parallel runway
below me. Airman is worse about that; I've seen their airplanes on
three-mile upwinds (no kidding!).

It's more than patterns, though. I learned to fly in a Champ, with an
old-school instructor (wonderful guy--anybody in the Indianapolis area,
go visit with Dale Byrom). Takeoff was to the effect of "full power,
raise the tailwheel a little to the takeoff attitude, and hold it there
until she flies off on her own." When I moved to the 150, it was the
same idea: "lighten the nosewheel until she takes off on her own."
"Rotation" was a special procedure only used in short-field takeoffs.
At OU, though, every airplane gets rotated on every takeoff. I did it
my way with the chief ground instructor as my flight instructor one day,
and he commented on how nice and smooth my takeoff was. I explained
why, and he said "oh, well, we rotate here because we're teaching...."
Discussion ensued debating the merits of teaching what you're flying,
instead of what you might be doing in a couple of years, but it
obviously had no effect, as they still rotate. Meanwhile, I still get
comments about how smooth I am. (Not that I'm that good, I just have a
large group of people dedicated to making me look better, I guess.)

Landings are another point of contention here. When I started working
on my instrument rating, I had a new-ish, wet-behind-the-ears
instructor. Good stick (wow, could he handle the airplane), but not a
great instructor, and no sense (barrel rolls around other students,
according to rumor, and I'd be inclined to believe it). It was clear
where he'd trained, though. About my second or third lesson, he
commented on my landings: "geez, Buckles, you land like a taildragger
pilot, with your nose up in the air like that." I replied "I am a
taildragger pilot; it's called full-stall, and you should try it
sometime." I can stop a Cherokee (well, a Warrior) less than 200 feet
from the threshold. I've done it, with one of the assistant chiefs in
the airplane with me. Show me, please, how these flat-approach guys,
doing fifteen or so over the stall, are going to stop in less than a
thousand feet. Admittedly, I don't usually land like that--it's not
nice to the passengers--but I have the skill, the ability to control the
aircraft and command it to do my bidding, to do it. And I recognize
that each aircraft is different. Would I do that in a jet? No way.
But, last I checked, the O-320 under my cowl had pistons, my wingspan
was about forty feet, and, well, it wasn't a big airplane. *So I'm not
going to fly it like one.*

"Always land on the centerline." Bullsqueeze. Always land the airplane
where you want it to land. Teaching habit here is a bad thing--it
removes thought, and that's why we have a pilot in the airplane in the
first place, instead of a computer. Why should I land on the
centerline? At most airports, on most runways, sure, that's the place
to be. But I can point to airports where such is not the case. 40I,
for example, in Waynesville, OH. Grass strip, about 125 feet wide.
After years of constant, heavy use, the centerline of that runway is the
roughest spot on field. Slip about 40 feet north of the centerline,
though (RWY 08/26) and it smoothes right out. Put the airplane where
you want it.

I think the real problem here is the lack of respect for the student on
the part of the instructor and the program as a whole. The whole
concept is based on the idea of teaching it this way now, so you do it
this way later, when the situation is very different. That idea works
on the presumption that the student can't figure out that things are
different, and should be treated differently; rephrased, it assumes the
student is dumb. Now, I'd like to think I'm a bright guy, maybe even a
little ahead of the average, but if the average pilot can't see the
differences I can see, well, folks, we have a *serious* problem here.
(Actually, based on the idiots I see on the news every night, I'd like
to think I'm way ahead of the average, but that's another story :-). )
This presumption that the student can't think for himself is the real
culprit. I prefer to make sure that the student can see the
differences; I am constantly talking to students, making them evaluate
everything they see. I force them to engage their brains and exercise
conscious thought. "Why are you going to do that?" is the question of
the day, every day, and the correct answer is *never* "because you said so."

I dunno, just the ranting and raving of an grumpy old (23-year-old)
codger who had a great instructor, I guess.

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

[EDR]

Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?

For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
simultaneously share the airspace with:
- skydivers
- student pilots
- gliders
- radio controlled aircraft
- transient traffic
- based aircraft

[Dave Buckles]

EDR wrote:

> Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?
>
> For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
> simultaneously share the airspace with:
> - skydivers
> - student pilots
> - gliders
> - radio controlled aircraft
> - transient traffic
> - based aircraft

Never had the privilege; by the time I got there, he was in pretty bad
shape. His son, Emerson Jr. (Cub), owns the field, and I worked for
them for a while to pay for my training. I started my training with
Dale Byrom (who now lives in the Indianapolis area), and finished with
Emerson III (Cub's son). And are there many gliders there now? Last
time I was there, there was a 2-33 on the field, but I never saw it fly
much; most of the soaring was over at the Caesar Creek Soaring Club.
Ahh, good days; many of my fondest memories are of flying there. And
you forgot to mention that a significant portion of the students and
based aircraft were NORDO Cubs and Champs. :-)

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

[john smith]

> EDR wrote:
> > Dave, did you ever fly with Red at Waynesville?
> > For the uninitiated, at Waynesville, it is not uncommon to
> > simultaneously share the airspace with:
> > - skydivers
> > - student pilots
> > - gliders
> > - radio controlled aircraft
> > - transient traffic
> > - based aircraft

> Dave Buckles wrote:
> Never had the privilege; by the time I got there, he was in pretty bad
> shape. His son, Emerson Jr. (Cub), owns the field, and I worked for
> them for a while to pay for my training. I started my training with
> Dale Byrom (who now lives in the Indianapolis area), and finished with
> Emerson III (Cub's son). And are there many gliders there now? Last
> time I was there, there was a 2-33 on the field, but I never saw it fly
> much; most of the soaring was over at the Caesar Creek Soaring Club.
> Ahh, good days; many of my fondest memories are of flying there. And
> you forgot to mention that a significant portion of the students and
> based aircraft were NORDO Cubs and Champs. :-)

Red's philosophy was to start primary students in the Cub's (3) and
Champ (1) for the first ten hours. If you stayed with it that long, you
moved up to the C150 to learn how to use the radios. (This was back in
the late 70's/early 80's). In the winter, they would put one of the
Cub's on skis for rent. This lasted until one of the skis delaminated,
then it cost too much to replace, so that was the end of that. You can
get checked out in a Stearman and solo it if you provide your own hull
coverage.

[Dave Buckles]

john smith wrote:

> Red's philosophy was to start primary students in the Cub's (3) and
> Champ (1) for the first ten hours. If you stayed with it that long, you
> moved up to the C150 to learn how to use the radios. (This was back in
> the late 70's/early 80's). In the winter, they would put one of the
> Cub's on skis for rent. This lasted until one of the skis delaminated,
> then it cost too much to replace, so that was the end of that. You can
> get checked out in a Stearman and solo it if you provide your own hull
> coverage.

This was still true when I left in '99. When I was there, they had
skis, too, so they must've repaired them/bought a new pair. And all of
their airplanes require you to bring your own insurance (which makes
their fabulous rental prices a little less fabulous; I used to fly the
Champ for $34/hr, and the 150 for $41/hr).

Now, as an instructor myself, I wish *I* had a Champ to use as a primary
trainer. 'Course, the insurance company would never sign off on the
deal. Those guys are ruining aviation, and I'll stop there before I
start ranting. Politics and insurance....

--Dave Buckles

http://www.flight-instruction.com

[Newps]

If you are still behind me when I am on the downwind you'll never catch
me as I usually turn base at the numbers. Or sooner, depending on where
I am parking.



lardsoup wrote:
> 80 kts huh? I like to fly fast. Even in the pattern. Learned that during
> the instrument training at BIG airports. You won't mind if I blow past you
> at 100kts on the downwind. I mean why should I be stuck behind a slow poke.
> Sure, I'll tell you I'm coming. Or maybe not. No reg against not using the
> radio. Right?
>
>

[Michael]

Dave Buckles > wrote
> Now, as an instructor myself, I wish *I* had a Champ to use as a primary
> trainer.

It is a lovely trainer, isn't it? Doesn't really do much of anything
else well, but it does make the student fly the airplane all the way
down the runway without the idiosyncracies and terrible visibility of
a Cub.

> 'Course, the insurance company would never sign off on the
> deal.

Nonsense. When I got my tailwheel checkout, the rental Champ was
available for primary training. You could solo it with 5 hours
tailwheel time, no minimum time in make and model. It was used that
way until about a year ago, when it was grounded for maintenance
reasons (and no, not because it was crashed). Insurance company had
no problem with it.

Of course I don't believe they had a single CFI on the insurace with
less than 500 hours of tailwheel time. That's what it takes to get
insurers to sign off on primary training in taildraggers - the right
instructors. I can think of half a dozen light taildraggers available
for primary training within 50 miles of where I live (in Houston) but
none of them are use 300 hour CFI's with 15 hours of tailwheel time.
The absolute minimum to instruct in tailwheel at any of them is 100
hours tailwheel time, and most want more. Not unreasonable, IMO.

Remember that in the halcyon days when 300 hour CFI's routinely
instructed in taildraggers, they all had 200+ hours of tailwheel time
and learned in taildraggers themselves.

Don't blame insurance companies for the sad state of CFI training. If
it were up to me, you would need to make 10 solo takeoffs and landings
in a taildragger to be a CFI (even tri-gear). That would thin the
ranks and eliminate the land-at-15-knots-over-stall types in a
heartbeat. If you really want some quality control, require 10
takeoffs and landings in a single seat taildragger.

Michael

[Paul Sengupta]

There's good evidence (or so I've read!) to suggest that under a high
workload/pressure/emergency situation, a pilot will revert to his
earliest training...acting on "instinct" if you were. The latest thought is
to teach something that can be used in any situation from day 1, so
when (if) such a situation arises, it will be ingrained into the pilot.

Paul

"Dave Buckles" > wrote in message
news:zsdOb.4996$dd6.4694@lakeread02...
> The whole
> concept is based on the idea of teaching it this way now, so you do it
> this way later, when the situation is very different.

[PJ Hunt]

"lardsoup" > wrote in message
...
> You won't mind if I blow past you
> at 100kts on the downwind. I mean why should I be stuck behind a slow
poke.

Absolutely no problem at all. Just be sure to pass on my right where you
belong, because I'll be turning left inside of you.

I don't even care whether or not you use the radio. If you do, that's great.
If you don't, well I can manage ok with that too.

Fly pretty, anyone can fly safe.
PJ